Editorial: No to all the ballot questions; just vote!

Friday

Oct 31, 2008 at 12:01 AMOct 31, 2008 at 10:37 PM

No matter how you vote, though, the most important thing of all is that you do turn up at the polling both.

Staff reports

Vote!

Last week, the TAB strongly urged voters to say no to ballot Question 1, which would eliminate the state income tax and thereby devastate the state economy. The TAB stands by this opinion and below, urges you to vote no on ballot Questions 2 and 3 as well.

No matter how you vote, though, the most important thing of all is that you do turn up at the polling both. Allston-Brighton is known for extremely low voter turnout. In November 2007, for the most important election in recent neighborhood history featuring two well-respected district City Council candidates and nine at-large candidates, just 13 percent of 36,660 registered voters came to the polls. The turnout for the 2004 presidential race was somewhat better, with 21,840 of 43,475 registered voters showing up, but it was still not the turnout that an election with such significant ramifications deserved.

Let’s reverse this trend in 2008. The state of the country is dire, and too much depends on your vote. So on Tuesday, Nov. 4, go to the polls and cast your vote.

And for those transients, college students in particular, who are registered to vote in another state, the TAB urges you to send in your absentee ballots. In some ways, voting in another state, where the outcome of the presidential election is much less predictable than here in Massachusetts, could have an even bigger impact than voting here.

No on Question 2

As proposed, this law would replace criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with citations. No longer would offenders suffer the consequences of a criminal record for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana.

A “Yes” vote would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties.

A “No” vote would make no change in state criminal laws concerning possession of marijuana.

Decriminalizing marijuana is like being a little bit pregnant. It doesn’t make sense.

Proponents for legalizing marijuana should be opposed to this question as much as those who believe possession of the drug should elicit harsh legal ramifications. The growth, harvesting and sale of marijuana represents big business in this country — a business that makes no contribution to the costs it generates in legislation, law enforcement and for the cost of those housed in our prison systems.

For those who are unfamiliar, an ounce of marijuana costs upwards of $300. An ounce can produce anywhere from 30 to 120 joints, with an average of 60, depending upon the potency.

This proposed law does not legalize marijuana; it makes it less penalizing to possess “small” amounts of the controlled substance.

Vote no. No matter which side of the legalization of marijuana issue you are on, this is not the law to address the issue. Both sides should go back to the drawing board and come back with another argument.

No on Question 3

As proposed, this law would prohibit any dog racing or racing meeting in Massachusetts where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs.

The way this proposal is written, dog racing would still be legal if betting or wagering on the dogs was taken out of the equation. The follow-up question is, then, why bother racing dogs? Exactly.

The proposal offers nothing on the subject of horse racing. The two industries — dog and horse racing — are not so dissimilar that they should be addressed individually.

While there are cruelties associated with both dog and horse racing, Massachusetts has stringent policies on the treatment of the animals, horses and dogs. In reality, some of these dogs are cared for better than some children and elderly in this state. However, there are also cases of cruel and inhumane treatment in both forms of animal racing.

As long as the Lottery Commission is permitted to exist, there is room for horse and dog racing in this state.

To take dog racing off the radar screen only promotes an underground option of a currently regulated industry.

Vote no. Animal cruelty activists and gambling proponents can find common ground on this issue, but this proposal is not the answer.